Ads


Peter J. Leithart

view all featured authors »

The Religious Right After Reaganism

I’ve made adjustments to bring this piece up to date, but I wrote most of it in January 2009 when President Obama was inaugurated for his first term. Friends told me at the time that I was overwrought, that Obama’s election was a fluke. Tuesday, I think, proved them wrong.

Peter J. Leithart Something died this week. It probably died four years ago, but Tuesday it was pronounced dead. Obama’s two-term presidency is a seam in American history. One phase of American political history ended, and another began. Obama was right all along: “Change” happened.

What died was Ronald Reagan. More importantly, Reaganism died. Reagan embodied a creed of three articles—limited government, unapologetic support for the free market, and equally unapologetic faith in the rightness of America. Iraq soured the country on aggressive Reaganite foreign policy, and the recession has done the near-miraculous—it has made Keynes sexy again. Obama didn’t get a mandate on Tuesday, but neither did the nation repudiate his health care plan. The era of big government is back. Obama’s re-election was the funeral for a creed that had been on life support for several years.

It would be easy for Christians of the religious right to pretend that the prognosis is exaggerated: “He’s not quite dead yet!” We don’t want our stories to end. But Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy was right: Some stories have to come to an end to make room for new ones. The ruin of the Reaganism, and the religious right that was always parasitic on Reaganism, is a seed gone into the ground to die. It will bear fruit in the future only if conservative Christians learn to die, and learn what to die to.

This doesn’t mean, as it has meant for some evangelicals in recent years, a wholesale abandonment of the religious right’s agenda. The issues that galvanized the Moral Majority several decades ago haven’t gone away. Family decay, divorce, the collapse of sexual morals, abortion and stem cell research, gay rights—all of these remain as crucial to our common life as they ever were. Creeping or galloping, statism still needs to be opposed vigorously.

Yet conservative Christians have much to die to. Not least, we have to die to a rhetorical style and a public posture. The media exaggerates the crankiness of religious conservatives, but they are exaggerating something real. Does the frenzied tone of Christian commentary manifest confident Christian faith? I don’t remember that Jesus said, “You shall know them by their fear.”

The more basic death has to be a death to the Reaganite creed on whose coattails the religious right rose to power. Christians have the opportunity to construct a genuinely evangelical public philosophy, a public philosophy and practice that is not an ill-fitting addendum to the gospel but arises from the gospel.

What might this look like?

Economically, we need to uncouple Christian economic values from Reaganism. Free trade and free markets are goods, but they aren’t the only goods. Capitalism does produce injustices and inequities. It does have its cultural contradictions, and Christians won’t have a fully Christian public philosophy until we have reckoned with the inner tensions between advocacy of the market and, say, support for traditional families.

We have to die to the instinct to test the justice of a system by asking how well it works for the rich. In the Bible, the crucial test is the opposite: Do the poor, weak, and forgotten, the widows and orphans, get justice? Conservative Christians need to be prepared to read, and repeat, Jesus’ “woe to the rich” and his “He anointed me to preach good news to the poor” without wincing and hedging. We need to learn to sing the Magnificat without quietly spiritualizing its disturbing economic and social message.

An evangelically grounded foreign policy will have to unlearn the instinct to confuse the fortunes of America with those of God’s kingdom. Even at this late date, I still find Richard Neuhaus’ careful formula compelling: “On balance, and considering the alternatives, America is a force for good in the world.” But, as Neuhaus continually warned, that is not at all to say that God’s kingdom is identical to or carried along by the United States of America. We have to see and expose American folly and abuse when it happens; and we have to admit that it does happen.

Positively, a foreign policy rooted in the gospel will take fuller account of the fact that Christianity is an international brotherhood. A renewed religious right cannot offer a purely “national-interest” foreign policy. Asking whether Christians might be on the receiving end of U.S. bombs should be one of our first questions when American forces get deployed. But until Christians further learn how to work “love your enemies” into foreign policy, our public philosophy will inevitably appear, and be, less than fully Christian.

The details of post-Reaganism Christian public philosophy are not going to be evident all at once. The fruit never resembles the dying seed. But it has to be something other than the same old thing. If we refuse to die, we also refuse the fruits of death. If we refuse to die, we implicitly refuse to follow Jesus, the grain that died in order to bear fruit.

Peter J. Leithart is on the pastoral staff of Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow, Idaho, and Senior Fellow of Theology and Literature at New St. Andrews College. His most recent book is Between Babel and Beast: America and Empires in Biblical Perspective (Wipf & Stock). His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.

Comments:

11.9.2012 | 1:34am
David Bunn says:
A serious understanding of economic liberty and free markets has never been primarily defined by how well these ideals "worked for the rich." Economic freedom, as well as all of its sister freedoms, benefits and blesses the poor more than any other system. This point has been argued repeatedly, so it is both depressing and shocking that you would cast the argument from the critical perspective employed by the Democratic Party and Sojourners rather than the best and most incisive defenders of free enterprise. While you may disagree that freedom is the best remedy for poverty, you certainly may not remake "Reaganism", as you term it, into something it was not. Ronald Reagan and the best of his followers presented a vision of economic freedom and opportunity that they believed was best for all.
11.9.2012 | 8:12am
Thanks for trenchant remarks that encourage a renewed approach. One suggestion: perhaps the word justice might feature a bit more prominently. I'm thinking specifically regarding the need to resist "galloping" statism. So, for example, we might note that the state can promote justice to individuals only by supporting such non-political entities as churches, schools (as they should be as non-government institutions, not as they generally are today), businesses, and so on. This concept of justice may help provide the structure in which a renewed public theology might find expression.
11.9.2012 | 8:29am
I imbibed Reaganism in high school (mainly via Reagan's own radio broadcasts between 1976 and 1980, a selection of which is now published as _Reagan In His Own Hand_). You may very well be right that his version of conservative fusionism had its last rites read over it on Tuesday. I'm not yet convinced, but at the very least you identify real failures in Reagan's heirs' articulation and extension of his governing philosophy. But I'd also lodge some qualifications: 1) While it's quite right that Republicans have often failed (notably in the recent campaign) to articulate the opportunities a market-oriented economy offers the poor, this was always an aspect of Reagan's message (along with the moral hazards of government dependency), and even more so in Jack Kemp's, and the same note has been struck by Kemp's protegé Paul Ryan, especially before he largely disappeared from public view as Romney's running mate. Neuhaus's _Doing Well and Doing Good_ remains the most theologically informed account of the promise of the market economy I know of. 2) Reagan was considerably more restrained in his use of the military (after the Lebanon disaster) than any president who has succeeded him, and especially his Republican successors. It's not at all clear that the last 25 years has invalidated "peace through strength" as a foreign policy, as Reagan's "keep your powder dry" approach has been abandoned in favor of the bipartisan national policy of the post-Cold War era, summarized by Steve Sailer as "Invite the world, invade the world, in hock to the world." It took Obama's first administration to solidify Reaganites against the third of those; I'd guess Marco Rubio is ahead of Rand Paul in the line forming for 2016, but it's not impossible that Obama's re-election will lead Republicans to reconsider the "Invade the world" plank as well. Here's hoping.
11.9.2012 | 9:39am
Mile says:
Economics and foreign policy don't seem to have worked for the last two republican candidates. GWB wone twice with a mix of both economic and moral policies. The poor have not done well under Omama. Indiscriminate drone assassinations, non-war kenetic military engagements and leading form behind has diminished his claim to the high ground on foreign policy as well.
11.9.2012 | 10:13am
If the majority of Americans now believe, as they appear to, in rights over responsibility, in political correctness over principle, in community activism over family, and in the platitudes of superrich celebrities over the wisdom of Christianity, then we are all heading for a cliff that is more than just a financial one. Do minorities, women, gays, the young, and the other 'constituencies' to which Obama appealed, really believe that big government - for this is the truth behind the deceptions of his campaign - will really shepherd in life, liberty and happiness? Could the US be unaware of where Europe's leaders have brought us? Has it forgotten how easily freedom can be surrendered? If America is taking lessons from this side of the Atlantic, what price the free world? From James Roberts, in London.
11.9.2012 | 10:38am
"Asking whether Christians might be on the receiving end of U.S. bombs should be one of our first questions when American forces get deployed."

You have got to be kidding us.
11.9.2012 | 11:01am
" Asking whether Christians might be on the receiving end of U.S. bombs should be one of our first questions when American forces get deployed."

You may want to revise that first question.
11.9.2012 | 11:15am
forbes says:
We miss the mark when we tie "capitalism" and politics to religion. I'll offer this ... "What would Jesus do?" Would he embrace the Right? Really? Why? Or the Left? Again, the same question. "My" Jesus knows no boarders, while embracing the poor, without question.

Can you imagine Jesus approving of our invasions? How many? It's in excess of 200. Or, how about dropping of "ordinance?" Try this one one ... His thoughts on our banking system?

I like the article, as proffered, without compromise. It IS time to turn the other cheek. sf
11.9.2012 | 11:16am
I don't think we can indict Reaganism if it wasn't invoked. I love Mitt Romney's approach and thought he would make a great president, one of the best we've had. But he wasn't a consistent articulator of limited government, freedom of religion, respect for personal property and embracing of personal responsibility. I think your take is interesting, but not justified. But thanks for getting a discussion started!
11.9.2012 | 11:20am
Paul Allen says:
Very well put. And social conservatives ought to forfeit easy partisan jibes and replace those with thoughtful, social-science correlated, reasoned arguments. This is a key first step. The so-called conservative media in the U.S. is a mirror image of the most hyperbolic, exaggerations of the liberal media. In fact, Obama's re-election was probably helped along by Fox news rather than hindered by it. Also worth considering is the British/Canadian red toryism that could feed American political culture with a healthier communitarianism than that which Obama is currying through his health care plan. In fact, Obama's health care plan, apart from the odious interventionism of the HHS mandate, is actually rather conservative for its efforts to make health care delivery more efficient (by which I'm referring to the fact that Canada spends much less on health care per capita than the U.S. yet has a higher life expectancy across the population by 3 years... U.S. republicans made a terrible mistake by effectively casting their lot with insurance companies' profit interests).
11.9.2012 | 11:22am
Dana White says:
If Reaganism has died, it was Republicans who killed it. Truth be told, Reagan rose up in spite of the Republican party, not because of it. The Republican establishment hated Reagan. They opposed Reagan in '68 and in '76 with Gerry Ford, who had promised not to run after he fulfilled Nixon's second term. George H.W. Bush opposed Reagan's run for the Republican nomination in 1979 and 1980 and then turned his back on what you call Reaganism when he won Reagan's third term in 1988. H.W. begot Clinton as his son begot Obama.

What is the Republican establishment? I'll tell you what it is not: a belief in free markets, limited government and liberty for the individual. Establishment Republicans like Gerry Ford, Bush Senior, etc. believe just as much in big government as does Barack Obama or Jimmy Carter. The Establishment promises to be more prudent managers of the welfare and to go a bit slower on the glide path to more government. That is all.

So who exactly gave the American people the choice of Reaganism which you contend they rejected? Was it John McCain or Mitt Romney? Ronald Reagan never engaged in class warfare. You can not say that about Romney or any of his establishment brethren.
11.9.2012 | 12:05pm
I think the problem is that American "exceptionalism" has been individualized and "balkanized." Individuals want limited government, except when programs directly benefit them. These same people also support the free market, except when to do so would interfere with their monopolistic economic interests. A slim majority of the public also believes that America is the major evil player on the world stage. So they want on one hand an internationally weak, collaborative, liked America, and on the other hand a strong America that can protect them from outsourcing work and jobs. It is a kind of national delusion, that prosperity and international power can be wished into existence, that money can be manufactured and distributed to everyone regardless of national economic productivity, that the government can be given more and more power without becoming increasingly inefficient and corrupt. Accept the fact that there is no American core culture outside of consumerism. There is no basis for a dialogue on any issue between Christian leaders and our elite. They reject outright the Scripture and Theology. There is no shared language. The average attendee in our churches is a consumer of self-help tips and not a serious student of the Bible. We can't even discuss these issues within our church, imagine addressing our elites.

This is the full flowering of post-modernist thinking in politics, currently at 51% of the national electorate. The Bible has some words to describe this thinking; greed, envy, folly, and hypocrisy are the first ones that come to mind.
11.9.2012 | 12:07pm
I disagree with the notion that in fact Keynesian economics has ever or will be in compatible with Christian faith. The basic idea of Keynesian economics is that governments are the only economic actor that can increase spending during natural business cycles. Keynes developed his ideas during the interwar period in which unemployment reached as high as 20 percent. Purposing in his work The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Keynes advocated deficit spending during economic downturns to maintain full employment. By maintaining full economic employment one would still have as much spending by a full employed citizenry of a state which prevented the devastating effects of recession or depression in which people lose their jobs and significant reduce their spending, which ripples through the economy with devastating effect.

True these public works are to be paid for by borrowings but an often forgotten part is that Keynes also advocated collecting taxes in order to fund public works that would be spent during downturns in economic boom years. Keynes believed that once full employment had been attained by government invention then the operations of the free market should take over control over the economy of a state. “Thus,” Keynes wrote, “apart from the necessity of central controls to bring about an adjustment between the propensity to consume and the inducement to invest, there is no more reason to socialise economic life than there was before” (379).

In essence the idea is simple, unsure full employment and you will prevent economic collapse of a state. The reality is that the church should be engaged in the cause of helping the poor and the oppressed find work but as in many other things the Christian church fails here in my view. The only objection I can see to why a Christian would have to reject Keynesian economics is because they do not believe in taxes, yet through scriptures we see there is support for Christians paying taxes. Romans 13:1, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God" (NIV). If authorities wish to tax us in light of the good that will be brought to a nation the implements Keynesian economics we are to submit to the power of the state given by God. Further Paul even states in Romans 13:5-7, “Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (NIV)

I think a danger that has occurred recently even among the thinking Evangelicals and Catholics is to call evil certain polices or ideas which are not criticized in scripture. We must be careful not to join conservatism with Biblical doctrines. In the past Evangelical missionaries fuse cultural imperialism and the results were disastrous. I wonder if engage syncretism now between political ideas found nowhere in scripture and the holy truth of God’s word, what effect such sin will have upon the evangelizing our own nation?
11.9.2012 | 12:19pm
Heraclitus says:
Excellent article! I am a lifelong Democrat who started becoming disenchanted with the Democrats when Obama became presidenti n 2008. Since then, I've become thoroughly disgusted with the party and the president (over religious liberty, abortion, gay "rights,"etc.), so I was for the first time in my life willing and ready to vote Republican. But I was profoundly disappointed with what I heard and saw: the whole Republican message seemed to me to be stuck in an 80's time-warp (and I know, having come to age in that decade, casting my first vote in the 88' election - for Dukakis!). And even though I did in the end vote for Romney, I could easily see how he and his party's message could not resonate with many otherwise sympathetic voters.
11.9.2012 | 12:53pm
Richard says:
Reagan talked a lot more about limited government than he actually implemented it. Yes, he was a force that changed the mindset of the country unlike many before and all since. But the real Ronald Reagan was a far more reasonable fellow than the people spawned by the right to life movement, Focus on the Family, The Tea Party, etc., etc. What this past election demonstrated was that the citizenry doesn't want big government. It wants good government. Rooting policy exclusively in moral issues doesn't get us there as Bush so ably demonstrated. And rape was not an effective issue in this past presidential campaign. I have no doubt my comments will fall on non-fertile ground for many here but they are the truth.
11.9.2012 | 1:07pm
You are surly correct that a seam has been sewn. It is palpable. However, I'm not sure it means what you think it means, or not entirely. For certain, I find the critical qualifications of David Brunn and Jeff Peterson on the free market deeply in order as they remind us to be careful not to target and eliminate the wrong things. It pays to remember that while the fruit might not look like the seed you'll never get a particular fruit unless you start with a particular seed. The "same old thing" that conservatives need to abandon is not the worldview of classical conservatism, which includes free markets, robust national defense, and a strong civil society (toward which, in part, Nick Lantinga seems to be gesturing). Yes, conservatives need to learn how to articulate policy positions in such a way that they are understood as advancing the real good of everyone. But such policies will only be identified by a renewal of conservative patrimony, not a rejection of it. Common descent is critical, a seed dies to reproduce itself, not to make room for a different crop entirely. As Yuval Levin has recently written, "We need to be ourselves, but better."

I am unsure what is meant by asking whether Christians will the on the receiving ends of bombs before deploying on our forces. Surly it is not to suggest that an enemy combatant's commitment to Jesus makes any moral difference in deliberations regarding the justness of a particular war or the responsibility our own soldiers might have in killing them? I am unaware of any biblical injunction that I ought to refuse to kill an enemy because of their Christian identity. If anything, I should more concerned about the killing of the non-Christian enemy as the certainty of their hope in the resurrection is a mystery to me. A source of Christian confidence in just war thinking is rooted in our confidence in the providence and grace of our God.
11.9.2012 | 1:21pm
You are surly correct that a seam has been sewn. It is palpable. However, I'm not sure it means what you think it means, or not entirely. For certain, I find the critical qualifications of David Brunn and Jeff Peterson on the free market deeply in order as they remind us to be careful not to target and eliminate the wrong things. It pays to remember that while the fruit might not look like the seed you'll never get a particular fruit unless you start with a particular seed. The "same old thing" that conservatives need to abandon is not the worldview of classical conservatism, which includes free markets, robust national defense, and a strong civil society (toward which, in part, Nick Lantinga seems to be gesturing). Yes, conservatives need to learn how to articulate policy positions in such a way that they are understood as advancing the real good of everyone. But such policies will only be identified by a renewal of conservative patrimony, not a rejection of it. Common descent is critical, a seed dies to reproduce itself, not to make room for a different crop entirely. As Yuval Levin has recently written, "We need to be ourselves, but better."

I am unsure what is meant by asking whether Christians will the on the receiving ends of bombs before deploying on our forces. Surly it is not to suggest that an enemy combatant's commitment to Jesus makes any moral difference in deliberations regarding the justness of a particular war or the responsibility our own soldiers might have in killing them? I am unaware of any biblical injunction that I ought to refuse to kill an enemy because of their Christian identity. If anything, I should more concerned about the killing of the non-Christian enemy as the certainty of their hope in the resurrection is a mystery to me. A source of Christian confidence in just war thinking is rooted in our confidence in the providence and grace of our God.
11.9.2012 | 5:06pm
Adam_Baum says:
@Patrick Hansen

"I disagree with the notion that in fact Keynesian economics has ever or will be in compatible with Christian faith. "

Any economic theory that disrespects and disregards human nature is opposed to Christianity-especially ones that assume that their product will either result in earthly perfection or requires it as an assumption.

Keynesianism isn't so much an economic theory as economic speculation that rests on assertions. Even if it was solidly grounded, is not followed-because Keynes asserted that deficits in downturns were to be followed up with surpluses in good times.

There are several problems with Keynesianism.

The first is that it rests on the assumption that people simultaneously stop spending en masse for no particular reason, and in the absence of an actual coherent explanation, Keynes simply asserted the existence of an unexplained, uncaused phenomonon "animal spirits" and then asserted that "sticky wages" (in reality, wages are sticky, but not stuck) present an insurmountable obstacle to adjustment. "Aggregate demand" is an abstraction that depicts no reality.

It assumes that all government spending, no matter on what is productive-and in doing so assumes incorruptable omniscience of politicians. Remember, despite the abstraction of "aggregate demand", Keynesianism requires the government to spend money on specific things. The questions of utility and value are never asked-just assumed-hence Paul Krugman's affirmative response to the question would it be good if we paid people to dig ditches and fill them back up again.

The reality is that no central authority can accumulate the economic knowledge necessary to effectively spend the money, because economic knowledge always involves details that can't be concentrated. It is a destructive myth that a President can "steer" the economy. The economy isn't a machine with deterministic inputs and I reject the notion as decidedly against Christianity that people are cattle to be manipulated by the state.

Although Keynes said that practical men are usually slaves to some defunct economist, it is the other way around. Those practical men-politicians use economists as their slaves, to lend credibility to their natural inclination to spend, tax and manipulate others. In actual practice, politicians have adopted a one-sided counterfeit of Keynesianism to allow them to engage in deficit spending in good times as well as bad, not for any public purpose, but for the very real purpose of buying votes, encouraging dependency, and publicizing their power. There is no incentive and no way to enforce debt reducing surpluses in "good times".

"If authorities wish to tax us in light of the good that will be brought to a nation the implements Keynesian economics we are to submit to the power of the state given by God. "

Baloney. Good? What good. "Authorities" have taxed us for their purposes, not ours. Now they'll tax us to kill the unborn. Shakespeare told us about the devil quoting Scripture, now we are told by statists subscribing to economic sorcery that Scripture tells us the power of government is unlimited, unquestionable and unassailable and our only proper response to their command to jump is to ask "how high". Tyranny is not authority.
11.9.2012 | 5:10pm
Paul Shonk says:
Patrick Hansen: "Keynes believed that once full employment had been attained by government invention then the operations of the free market should take over control over the economy of a state."

I know next to nothing about economics, but, as a matter of simple human psychology, it is native to assume, as Keynes apparently does, that, after disinteresedly "intervening" to save the free market, politicians will graciously hand everything back, once things have improved. Have we not seen, on the contrary, that, once government gets its hand in something, it's there to stay?
11.10.2012 | 6:17am
Wesley says:
I believe that the supposed religion of our enemies should be irrelevant. If they really are our enemies, then they probably aren't really Christians even if they claim to be. If you are talking about civilians, we do our very best to try to prevent civilian casualties, no matter what religion they belong to. Christians shouldn't receive a higher priority and non-Christians shouldn't receive a lower priority.

I agree that we should work to preserve Christian communities in the Middle East, but there is probably only so much that we can do. One criticism of the Iraq War that has developed during the last several years is that the war has destroyed Iraq's Christian community and caused most of them to have to immigrate. That is indeed unfortunate, but this was something that was totally unintended, just like the Civil War between the Sunnis and the Shiites and the campaign of attacks by Al-Qaeda and Iranian-backed terrorists. But it was inevitable that someday Saddam Hussein and his regime would fall from power, even if it wasn't due to a U.S. -led invasion. The current Iraqi government is far from perfect and is still developing and maturing, but I haven't head much about the government mistreating the Christians in the country. Most, if not all of the threats against Iraqi Christians have come from Al-Aaeda and its affiliates.

Also, many people have been opposed to the revolution in Syria and the possible downfall of Bashar al-Assad and his regime because he has been a protector of Syria's Christian community and his overthrow might mean that the Christians would be persecuted. Very true and of course very unfortunate. Many people including me are very worried about the growing power and influence of jihadists on the rebel side. But not all or even most of the rebels are terrorists. But Assad and his regime have killed and tortured thousands upon thousands of people. Syria under Assad has also been a close ally of Iran and has supported Hezbollah and Hamas. And many prominent Syrian "Christians" have been close to this regime? Indeed, the leaders of the Syrian Orthodox Church have been close supporters of Assad and his regime. Christians in Syrian do have real reason to worry about what kind of government will come next in their country, but that still doesn't give them moral justification to support Assad and his regime. Jesus said that we should be salt and light to the world. But this hasn't just happened in Syria under Assad. In Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Hussein was also supposedly a protector of the country's Christian community, though I don't think he was as close to the Christians as Assad has been to the Syrian Christians. But one of Hussein's top lieutenants was a self-proclaimed Christian. A few years ago, he was sentenced to death and executed for his crimes committed during Hussein's rule. This former Iraqi official was Catholic and the Vatican interceded on his behalf to try to prevent his execution. But the Iraqi court refused a stay of execution. Now no matter what you may think of the death penalty, the Vatican erred in judgment in interceding in this case. The only reason that the Vatican got involved is because this official was a self-proclaimed Christian, and specifically a Catholic. There were other officials from Saddam Hussein's regime that have been executed, including Hussein himself, but the Vatican didn't intercede on their behalves.
11.10.2012 | 7:58am
"Christians won’t have a fully Christian public philosophy until we have reckoned with the inner tensions between advocacy of the market and, say, support for traditional families."

Excellent article, Peter. There is no such thing as a "free" market any more than there is such a thing as a "free lunch". There is such a thing as an unregulated market, but any market constrains something and the feeling that imagining it gives everybody of freedom in the abstract is simply a chimera. That the unregulated market constrains "traditional families" is undeniable. What would your life be like if you had as many children at the same age as Mitt Romney does? And, particularly, what would it be like if you had them, as he does, at age 65, and with a wife who earns no income?

I think Christ was far more sophisticated about markets and government than many of his followers: "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's...", "My kingdom is not of this world...", and so on. We are lucky to have a country here where Ceasar and Christ can coexist in practice, if not in harmony. For Christ to persecute Ceasar is as constraining to this as for Ceasar to persecute Christ.
11.10.2012 | 11:10am
I agree with Patrick Hansen that there is no incompatibility between Keynesian economics and the Christian faith. In this area as in all areas of life, there are temptations which are all too frequently embraced and necessary disciplines which are shunned, but the ideas make a lot of sense.

Why wouldn't a Christian magistrate choose times of high unemployment to do extra work repairing highways, bridges, dams, railroads, etc. What better time to initiate new projects. Although I was once so conservative that I believed the entire street and road system should be privatized, that idea isn't really practical or borne out by human experience.

As for the issue advanced that politicians would never do the tougher part of Keynesian economics, remember that Bill Clinton's administration ran four straight budget surpluses around the turn of this century. In fact, the surpluses were so large and appeared to be so persistent that much ink was spilled, wondering how markets would price risk when all of the US treasury securities had been retired, which appeared on track to happen about now.
11.10.2012 | 7:29pm
Richard says:
Before a final judgment on Reagan or his presidency, one ought to read his published Biography and his newly released journal. A far more complex, nuanced, and thoughtful man than the charicature of his enemies stands revealed.

For instance, he and Nancy used to regale themselves with stories that he consulted astrologers before making important decisions. The things people say.

Best,

Richard
11.10.2012 | 8:56pm
Mr. Leithart, you are one of the most important Christian thinkers of our time, but your criticism of capitalism (Reaganism as you call it) misses the point. Capitalism is good precisely because it benefits the poor more than any other economic system ever implemented. The poor in the United States enjoy a relatively high material standard of living.

As for the rich, they are able to pull the levers of power to keep their wealth, which usually means market distortions. So there is a tension between the wealthy and liberal markets (as you acknowledge).

But the real problem with capitalism is that it creates its own set of norms, values, and institutions that erode virtue. It venerates a transactional view of human existence. It alienates the participants and promotes individualism, egoism, and hedonism. This has profound consequences for the family, the environment, the church, and ultimately true human flourishing.

This is the tension between capitalism and Christianity that you need to understand if you want to appreciate where young conservatives/paleo evangelicals (like me) are coming from.

Grace and peace and keep up His work!
11.10.2012 | 9:03pm
Adam Baum says:
"I know next to nothing about economics, but, as a matter of simple human psychology, it is native to assume, as Keynes apparently does, that, after disinteresedly "intervening" to save the free market, politicians will graciously hand everything back, once things have improved. Have we not seen, on the contrary, that, once government gets its hand in something, it's there to stay?"

You may know "next to nothing" about economics, but your understanding of politics is impressively complete.
11.11.2012 | 8:33am
Nathanael says:
Um, I believe Reaganism died when George W. Bush, a big government social conservative, was elected president.
11.11.2012 | 11:02am
Whenever and wherever there exists an alliance of interests, broadly speaking, between the Federal government and the mass media (television, film, the press), then what happened last Tuesday is unremarkable. Wake up! Ronald Reagan and the merits or demerits of Conservatism vs. Liberalism had nothing to do with it except as such matters enjoy the praise of suffer the scorn of the media.

The guiding rule is this: the media will have their way whenever they act concertedly for long enough.

The sole independent variable, external to the government–media alliance, that can influence it is the quality of the education of the average American voter. Enough said.
11.11.2012 | 4:11pm
Diane says:
Could never ever imagine Jesus voting for or even approving of Mitt or Ryan.
Thank God the rest of the US was smart too.
I am glad no woman will die while pregnant because of restrictive abortion law.
I am glad women will be able to have access to contraceptives.


I may not want theses things for myself, but I do not believe that I should tell other women how to live their lives.

Lots of other women agreed with me, many Catholics despite what their bishops ordered them to do.
11.11.2012 | 6:06pm
Ray Keating says:
This piece was recommended to me, but I have to say, I don't know why. A stunning lack of knowledge of economics is displayed, such as thinking that only the rich benefit under free markets. And what exactly does "an evangelically grounded foreign policy" actually mean? There is little indication in the piece that there is anything substantive to such a declaration. It seems like a platitude. Finally, the author is correct about the social issues, but fails to serve up anything worthwhile to think about after an Obama re-election, and worrisome cultural trends.
11.11.2012 | 7:59pm
While I think you can be a Christian and be anywhere on the political spectrum, if you want to help the poor, the free market is the way to go. The free market has done much more for the poor than for the rich. I think it was Thomas Sowell who said "The rich didn't need running water--they had running slaves." The industrial revolution was all about cranking out stuff for the poor--the rich already had their own tailors. Looking at the U.S., I would say that capitalism is about little children not burning alive in their beds--before Standard Oil, impurities in kerosene would often cause the lamp to explode and start a fire that could burn down whole city blocks; in order to set the "standard" Rockefeller purified his kerosene; thus the profit motive saved untold numbers of lives. He also drove down the price of kerosene so that even we bottom-dwellers could afford lamps. Previously, to be poor meant you just went to sleep when it got dark; the poor couldn't afford artificial lighting. We could recite similar stories for all of the "Robber Barons." The free market is the best way to provide what people want and to do so most cheaply. Attempts to interfere with the market usually cause more harm than good--for instance, rent control destroys housing and creates crack houses; it hurts the very people meant to benefit. I apologize for listing these points, since I'm sure most of the people reading this site already know all of this. But, this article reminds me of how often I hear Christians who really understand the Gospel do not seem to grasp the free market. Maybe I'm not getting him, but Tim Keller seems a prime example.
11.11.2012 | 9:03pm
Rick says:
Wesley:

The history of Syria from independence from the French in 1946 until the takeover by the Assad family in 1970 is an endless story of coups, intrigues, quasi-civil war, and appalling instability. There were 20 different governments from 1946 to 1956 alone--averaging two a year. With the Assads and Alouite rule came stability at last and protection for more than the Christian population. The minority Shia were also protected. This was done by an iron-fisted dictatorship, because the passionate sectarian differences in Syria rendered democratic rule unworkable. It hasn't been a government we would like, but it was stable, peaceful, and workable for the people.

It was more or less like life in Morocco while I was living there: stable and peaceful, with all minority groups protected, including Berbers and Jews. (Shortly after I arrived in Morocco, King Hassan II issued a plea for Moroccan Jews to please stay home and stop emigrating to Israel. He didn't want to lose his ancient Jewish community.) It was all safe and peaceful, though, until you challenged the king. At that point, life in Morocco became very, very hazardous, just like it has been for protesters in Syria.

When the Assad regime goes, the aftermath could be just as violent and unstable as it was before the regime came to power, with bloodbaths for the Shia and Alouites, as well as for the Christians.
11.12.2012 | 9:19am
Excellent article, Mr. Leithart. Thank you for helping me clarify some important things that I was considering after this election.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact